1) The patch was made to certified machines, thus making them non-certified.
2) It was only applied in 2 counties. (*cough*Democratic counties*cough*) Why not the whole state?
3) I'm fairly certain that if *I* merely open the ballot box or machine during the election, that satisfies the requirement for "tampering" regardless of me touching ballots or flipping bits, and I'd be making an extra stop at the local police precinct before going home.
Of course, it all depends on who's prosecuting and how it gets presented.
Anti-virus software will always be needed. It doesn't matter which OS, there will always be mistakes which open up remote exploits, or even a user running a trojan horse.
I don't like the alternative which would make the OS as secure as you suggest: only allowing applications signed by the OS maker/distributor. And just thinking about it right now, an exploit could potentially get around this, too.
Anti-virus, in some form, will always be needed, as long as social engineering still works. But do not read my stance as being counter to yours.
That's the entire point of the panel. The question they were asked was is there any published study that shows these materials are safe? And the panel correctly said there aren't *any* studies on the materials' safety -- meaning they can't tell you anything about the materials, and neither can anyone else right now.
Otherwise this is a bunch of pointless worrying, which is what it is at this point.
I've got to post to undo some incorrect moderations. Whee! For some reason, slashdot picked the next moderation in the list, substantially changing things. Oh well.
In case anyone doubts this, here's a brief list of domains that are owned by spammers that actually have SPF configured, as well as forward and reverse DNS for their dedicated IPs.
Don't you think that's quite helpful of the spammers to identify their servers for you? Now you can block them if you choose. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
Replying to myself because I just spotted the article submitter did mention "sendmail" as his solution. There are plenty of solutions readily available for sendmail. Like I said above, he can follow his own links for that information, and many others here have helpfully posted sendmail solutions also.
I don't know why my eyes filtered out sendmail. Odd.
Since you are running your own SMTP server, you signed on to be a sysadmin. I am replying to you as a fellow sysadmin and I'll give sysadmin-style answers. Please don't take my response to be negative in any way, as I'm trying to help.
The logical solution is to configure sendmail on my server to do Sender Rewriting -- anyone have an easy FAQ to do this?
If you follow the link that you just gave for Sender Rewriting, it answers your question. "Implementation" links to modules, source, and configurations.
But many people/domains aren't doing this... and my Email forwarding to gmail is quite common, so I'm surprised that this issue hasn't gotten more attention. Is there another solution?"
I say that you don't know how many people are implementing SRS, nor do you know how many forward e-mail to Gmail. Let's stick to the basics before giving up so readily. I take it that you absolutely do not want to give up carte blanche forwarding from your own SMTP server to Gmail; so I'll tailor my reply to that.
But since my friend has published SPF (Sender Policy Framework) records that say only his server is allowed to send Emails for friend@frienddomain.com, gmail apparently rejects (silently buries actually!) the Email since it is forwarding through my server.
Your friend has published an SPF record because he doesn't want people forging his domain in the envelope-sender field. This is a common spam tactic that ruins the reputation of someone's domain, either through spammer apathy or sometimes pure malice. Your e-mail forwarding (especially since you run your own SMTP) to Gmail is out of pure convenience to you and is unnecessary, so don't ask your friend to drop his SPF record.
There are two ways to solve this: 1) Have your friend add your SMTP server to his SPF record. 2) Implement SRS if you want to solve it once and for all. If you follow your own links, there are explanations, examples, and actual code. You haven't said which SMTP server you're running, so you've limited the responses people can give you for your situation.
I publish SPF records for my domains. There isn't anything "broken" about wanting to protect my domains' reputations from forgery. Very few people have a problem with forwarding that they didn't create themselves. This exception I'm talking about is people who have old university accounts (or similar) which only allow e-mail checking through a shell account and forwarding purely through a ".forward" file (or similar), with no POP, IMAP, or administrative access. This is not you. But for anyone who this describes, because of the draconian service policies, they shouldn't be giving out that e-mail address to new contacts, publish on papers, etc.
My SMTP server checks SPF, but not DK. With SPF, the forged domains are instantly rejected, requiring minimal overhead. DK requires reception of the entire message (because the headers are in the DATA phase) in order to validate the message, on every message -- this uses unnecessary network bandwidth, and it places an extra load on my system since it would have to calculate and verify signatures for every single message. Maybe that's not an issue for you if you only receive a handful a day, but I receive thousands. Spammers know that including fake DK info in a message and then sending millions of these is effectively a Denial of Service attack on the servers that indiscriminately check DK signatures.
I also use backup relays. For the relays that are not under my control and don't implement SRS, I simply bypass SPF checks from those IP addresses.
About Google silently dropping your e-mail: Keep in mind that with your carte blanche forwarding, you're also forwarding spam. You are essentially spamming Gmail, even though it is you simply forwarding e-mail to your own account. It is difficult for Google to know this without human intervention or implementing some co
I have, and I bet you have, typed something out that made sense to us at the time and then have looked later to seen we said the entire opposite of what we meant.
Except I've never posted a comment, then another 2 or 3 replies in the same thread just stuffing my foot further down my mouth, then realize I was wrong, backpedal, and insult everyone for not taking it all as a huge joke.
I've been here long enough either reading or posting (and elsewhere) to know that if you do indeed shove that foot way down your throat, you apologize, take the criticism in stride, and maybe even try to make good of it.
Do you see the difference?
Yes, it's just "the Internet" and/. of all forums, but we're trying for intelligent discussion, right? Maybe some people like to discuss more than others. If the discussion is simply going in circles or not following any logic, I stop. And I'm certainly not one of those that uses my mod points to negatively moderate an enemy list -- that takes serious hate.
If we didn't take it seriously at all, we'd only have silly zingers, but nothing useful because no one else would post.
People in the SF Bay Area may have $2K/mo. for rent, but not $4500/mo. for a mortgage. And I'm glad for your buddy. It's just not a reality for most people around here right now. See another comment I made nearby about housing prices here.
If you put down enough capital and have good credit you can easily get a mortgage payment less than monthly rent, at least in a metropolitan area.
A house costs $700K+. Banks want 20% down right now, which works out to at least $140,000. Once you get past the "Who has that kind of money laying around?" you're now getting a loan on $560,000.
Seriously, good luck with that. I'm not being sarcastic.
Or, you can drive 2 hours each way M-F, for a place out in the middle of nowhere which still costs $350K. Now you definitely need a car because you're probably not too near other people who work in the same company for carpooling. If you're not burning $5/gal fuel and getting ulcers from the bad commute, then you're spending all your time on a train. Either way, that's 4 hours a day wasted on commute. Note that I haven't mentioned, until now, a spouse and kids. Forget being around for your family during the week. I know people who've done it (single and married w/ kids) but they have all burned out. I couldn't do that.
Once again, none of this is sarcasm or exaggeration. In fact, it may be somewhat conservative, even with this current blip in the housing market.
No offense taken. And I agree that southern Idaho is liberal, especially compared to the northern parts. I'm no stranger to Idaho, either.:)
About blocking access to riverfront property, you should know there is a certain tribe that does worse, like blocking water rights, making up water speed limits and illegally handing out tickets, and otherwise inflicting needless aggravation on the longtime residents.
It depends on where you live. Around the big cities in CA, your rent is much lower than what you would pay buying a property.
The reason for that is the landlords are paying on a mortgage from 20-30 years ago (or sitting on it free and clear) with only property tax and insurance costs. Real estate prices go up and up (with short-lived dips or stagnations) because more people keep coming to CA to live. You can rent a decent house in the South Bay for half as much as you would pay for just a mortgage. That's why it's not "preposterous" as you say. Maybe around year 15-20 your 2008 mortgage would be even with rents, but you're still in the hole overall.
In the Midwest, population is fairly stagnant, so yes I would say spend the extra $2-300/month to buy it. However, in CA, that would be an extra $2000+ a month. Was that your jaw dropping?
You shouldn't buy your primary house as an investment or to "save" money. It should be only seen as a method to have the final say (well, almost) in what happens with your property and get respect from your city government.
Would I be right in guessing that you don't live in CA?
1 month in Tokyo during the rainy season will show you what messed up weather really is.
No need to spend money to visit Tokyo for that. Just stay in the good 'ol USA and visit the Midwest or the South during the summer. If you want hurricanes/tropical storms on top of that, hang out around the Gulf of Mexico. Some people like that. I'd rather live in a place that cools off.
Since they were tax breaks, the only true way to get your money "back" is to start taxing those companies to recover the money that wasn't received.
But even if this is lost on the general public, and you still demand money "back," then consider your "stimulus checks" in 2001 and this year to more than satisfy that craving.
I was sort of with you for the milk analogy (doesn't the vitamin D milk cost more? or at least the same?), but you lost me with the 11.5 oz vs. 12 oz FCOJ containers. And there isn't any harm in adding vitamin D, unlike adding lead.
But your argument really falls flat because unleaded gasoline started out higher in price and never came down compared to leaded. The gasoline companies pretty much said they were removing lead from gasoline, which is false because not adding it is not the same as removing it. If they didn't say this outright, their advertising campaigns sure made it look that way.
This whole thing is also reminding of the current hands-free cellphone that's being mandated in CA. The industry is going all out in their campaign to market headsets to people. Except that any phone that has speakerphone will satisfy the law. Just don't hold it near your ear. And dialling does not need to be hands-free. Put it on a mount, on your dash, or in your lap, on speakerphone after dialling and voila, you're in full compliance. If sound quality is an issue, then buy the headset, but not before you've tested out your speakerphone.
The fact that you bashed the SF Bay Area, showed little knowledge of the area, and then proclaimed a lifelong hatred of CA, is lost on you? Now that you were shown to be incorrect, you pretend you didn't say what you just said?
Some people may not like what I'm going to say, but the few people I've encountered that seriously acted this way had done jail time. However, I am not saying *your* background is the same, because I don't know you.
Next you'll loudly proclaim you were not talking to me, even though you just spent several minutes doing just that.
About the others I've encountered: It's truly weird to see that type of behavior coming from an adult in his 40's (or anyone, really), and it's almost unnerving, because it makes it difficult to respond to such a blatant non sequitur... but maybe that's the point? I don't claim to understand that type of mind. It's definitely childish, though. But you are setting off my alarm bells in a similar fashion.
Although, if you only do this on Internet forums to troll for your jollies, I'm not certain how much better that is.
The urban legend was the "conspiracy" part. Coca-cola was just merely incompetent. The facts are that they switched formulas, then they switched back to the "original" formula, except that cane sugar was dropped for high fructose corn syrup.
Despite what Ms. Mikkelson says about blind taste-testing, there were still many people who could tell the difference and didn't like New Coke. I could always tell the fast-food joints that had New Coke over Coke Classic. I'd order a "coke" and in an unmarked container would be the beverage. Because I was in a drive-thru, I wouldn't know ahead of time or see the name on the tap. New Coke had a definite weird aftertaste.
Pepsi is another that claims people can't taste the difference between Coca-cola and Pepsi. But, I was able to taste the difference when I was at one of their "taste-test booths", with a cold, too.
The problem with these taste-test results is that I think there are a lot of people who can't taste the difference between X and a cow's backside. Can I prove that? No. But I know that at least for me (and a few of my friends), it wouldn't be an issue.
And yes, I can taste the difference between cane sugar and HFCS, too.
The fact I can afford a house on a software engineer's salary in Seattle, but not San Francisco?
1) If we're limiting this to specific cities, then yes. 2) Otherwise, if we're talking areas, then not quite. 3) And you can always rent, which is much cheaper than a 30 year mortgage. If you want, save the difference and invest in CDs (the financial kind!) or another safe investment. In 30 years, just buy the property outright (or pretty close to outright).
They both have crappy weather, so everything else equal, Seattle wins.
1) Are we limiting this to specific cities? 2) Otherwise, absolutely no way. SF weather is uniquely SF. Go across the SF Bay to Oakland on the same day and it'll be nice and sunny. Cold in SF? Drive down to San Jose.
Plus, growing up in Oregon, I have an ingrained hatred towards anything California.
That really says it all.
Here's what I have to say about Oregon: Socialized gasoline pumps. I drive up there, and when I go for gas (god forbid), I can't get an attendant to come out and pump for my car. But all hell breaks loose when I've waited for 20 minutes (after 2-3 waves of Oregonians are serviced ahead of me) and touch that gas pump. That's right! It's illegal to pump your own gas. For a state of people that are supposedly very constructionally conservative about the Constitution and taxes, you'd think people would be able to pump their own gas. Instead they've legislated into existence an entire labor class. So, whenever I see this hatred expressed toward CA, I just think, "hypocrites."
But yet, I don't hate entire states. I have better things to do.
Lead was added because older engines benefitted from the lead coating. It had to do with high compression ratios and unhardened blocks. I found an article that seems to support my conclusion that lead was simply added, and not some necessary component for refining oil.
Slashdot Mirror
Three problems with your point:
1) The patch was made to certified machines, thus making them non-certified.
2) It was only applied in 2 counties. (*cough*Democratic counties*cough*) Why not the whole state?
3) I'm fairly certain that if *I* merely open the ballot box or machine during the election, that satisfies the requirement for "tampering" regardless of me touching ballots or flipping bits, and I'd be making an extra stop at the local police precinct before going home.
Of course, it all depends on who's prosecuting and how it gets presented.
Better than a flying Pinto.
Anti-virus software will always be needed. It doesn't matter which OS, there will always be mistakes which open up remote exploits, or even a user running a trojan horse.
I don't like the alternative which would make the OS as secure as you suggest: only allowing applications signed by the OS maker/distributor. And just thinking about it right now, an exploit could potentially get around this, too.
Anti-virus, in some form, will always be needed, as long as social engineering still works. But do not read my stance as being counter to yours.
I prefer the second version.
Show me some research.
That's the entire point of the panel. The question they were asked was is there any published study that shows these materials are safe? And the panel correctly said there aren't *any* studies on the materials' safety -- meaning they can't tell you anything about the materials, and neither can anyone else right now.
Otherwise this is a bunch of pointless worrying, which is what it is at this point.
Ignorance is bliss?
I've got to post to undo some incorrect moderations. Whee! For some reason, slashdot picked the next moderation in the list, substantially changing things. Oh well.
In case anyone doubts this, here's a brief list of domains that are owned by spammers that actually have SPF configured, as well as forward and reverse DNS for their dedicated IPs.
Don't you think that's quite helpful of the spammers to identify their servers for you? Now you can block them if you choose. I don't see how this is a bad thing.
Replying to myself because I just spotted the article submitter did mention "sendmail" as his solution. There are plenty of solutions readily available for sendmail. Like I said above, he can follow his own links for that information, and many others here have helpfully posted sendmail solutions also.
I don't know why my eyes filtered out sendmail. Odd.
Since you are running your own SMTP server, you signed on to be a sysadmin. I am replying to you as a fellow sysadmin and I'll give sysadmin-style answers. Please don't take my response to be negative in any way, as I'm trying to help.
The logical solution is to configure sendmail on my server to do Sender Rewriting -- anyone have an easy FAQ to do this?
If you follow the link that you just gave for Sender Rewriting, it answers your question. "Implementation" links to modules, source, and configurations.
But many people/domains aren't doing this ... and my Email forwarding to gmail is quite common, so I'm surprised that this issue hasn't gotten more attention. Is there another solution?"
I say that you don't know how many people are implementing SRS, nor do you know how many forward e-mail to Gmail. Let's stick to the basics before giving up so readily. I take it that you absolutely do not want to give up carte blanche forwarding from your own SMTP server to Gmail; so I'll tailor my reply to that.
But since my friend has published SPF (Sender Policy Framework) records that say only his server is allowed to send Emails for friend@frienddomain.com, gmail apparently rejects (silently buries actually!) the Email since it is forwarding through my server.
Your friend has published an SPF record because he doesn't want people forging his domain in the envelope-sender field. This is a common spam tactic that ruins the reputation of someone's domain, either through spammer apathy or sometimes pure malice. Your e-mail forwarding (especially since you run your own SMTP) to Gmail is out of pure convenience to you and is unnecessary, so don't ask your friend to drop his SPF record.
There are two ways to solve this:
1) Have your friend add your SMTP server to his SPF record.
2) Implement SRS if you want to solve it once and for all. If you follow your own links, there are explanations, examples, and actual code. You haven't said which SMTP server you're running, so you've limited the responses people can give you for your situation.
I publish SPF records for my domains. There isn't anything "broken" about wanting to protect my domains' reputations from forgery. Very few people have a problem with forwarding that they didn't create themselves. This exception I'm talking about is people who have old university accounts (or similar) which only allow e-mail checking through a shell account and forwarding purely through a ".forward" file (or similar), with no POP, IMAP, or administrative access. This is not you. But for anyone who this describes, because of the draconian service policies, they shouldn't be giving out that e-mail address to new contacts, publish on papers, etc.
My SMTP server checks SPF, but not DK. With SPF, the forged domains are instantly rejected, requiring minimal overhead. DK requires reception of the entire message (because the headers are in the DATA phase) in order to validate the message, on every message -- this uses unnecessary network bandwidth, and it places an extra load on my system since it would have to calculate and verify signatures for every single message. Maybe that's not an issue for you if you only receive a handful a day, but I receive thousands. Spammers know that including fake DK info in a message and then sending millions of these is effectively a Denial of Service attack on the servers that indiscriminately check DK signatures.
I also use backup relays. For the relays that are not under my control and don't implement SRS, I simply bypass SPF checks from those IP addresses.
About Google silently dropping your e-mail: Keep in mind that with your carte blanche forwarding, you're also forwarding spam. You are essentially spamming Gmail, even though it is you simply forwarding e-mail to your own account. It is difficult for Google to know this without human intervention or implementing some co
If you can find it, the Robot City series by Asimov. The main characters should be young enough to keep a teen interested.
But... Foundation is too dry? If you want OC, try fantasy.
Our planet is also known to hum, a mysterious low-frequency sound thought to be caused by the churning ocean or the roiling atmosphere.
No, that's from our warp engines. How else do you move a planet around?
I have, and I bet you have, typed something out that made sense to us at the time and then have looked later to seen we said the entire opposite of what we meant.
Except I've never posted a comment, then another 2 or 3 replies in the same thread just stuffing my foot further down my mouth, then realize I was wrong, backpedal, and insult everyone for not taking it all as a huge joke.
I've been here long enough either reading or posting (and elsewhere) to know that if you do indeed shove that foot way down your throat, you apologize, take the criticism in stride, and maybe even try to make good of it.
Do you see the difference?
Yes, it's just "the Internet" and /. of all forums, but we're trying for intelligent discussion, right? Maybe some people like to discuss more than others. If the discussion is simply going in circles or not following any logic, I stop. And I'm certainly not one of those that uses my mod points to negatively moderate an enemy list -- that takes serious hate.
If we didn't take it seriously at all, we'd only have silly zingers, but nothing useful because no one else would post.
*shrug* To each his own.
People in the SF Bay Area may have $2K/mo. for rent, but not $4500/mo. for a mortgage. And I'm glad for your buddy. It's just not a reality for most people around here right now. See another comment I made nearby about housing prices here.
You didn't do yourself or your state any favors.
But as I said, I don't have the time to hate an entire state. Care to not be AC next time when flaming?
If you put down enough capital and have good credit you can easily get a mortgage payment less than monthly rent, at least in a metropolitan area.
A house costs $700K+. Banks want 20% down right now, which works out to at least $140,000. Once you get past the "Who has that kind of money laying around?" you're now getting a loan on $560,000.
Seriously, good luck with that. I'm not being sarcastic.
Or, you can drive 2 hours each way M-F, for a place out in the middle of nowhere which still costs $350K. Now you definitely need a car because you're probably not too near other people who work in the same company for carpooling. If you're not burning $5/gal fuel and getting ulcers from the bad commute, then you're spending all your time on a train. Either way, that's 4 hours a day wasted on commute. Note that I haven't mentioned, until now, a spouse and kids. Forget being around for your family during the week. I know people who've done it (single and married w/ kids) but they have all burned out. I couldn't do that.
Once again, none of this is sarcasm or exaggeration. In fact, it may be somewhat conservative, even with this current blip in the housing market.
No offense taken. And I agree that southern Idaho is liberal, especially compared to the northern parts. I'm no stranger to Idaho, either. :)
About blocking access to riverfront property, you should know there is a certain tribe that does worse, like blocking water rights, making up water speed limits and illegally handing out tickets, and otherwise inflicting needless aggravation on the longtime residents.
It depends on where you live. Around the big cities in CA, your rent is much lower than what you would pay buying a property.
The reason for that is the landlords are paying on a mortgage from 20-30 years ago (or sitting on it free and clear) with only property tax and insurance costs. Real estate prices go up and up (with short-lived dips or stagnations) because more people keep coming to CA to live. You can rent a decent house in the South Bay for half as much as you would pay for just a mortgage. That's why it's not "preposterous" as you say. Maybe around year 15-20 your 2008 mortgage would be even with rents, but you're still in the hole overall.
In the Midwest, population is fairly stagnant, so yes I would say spend the extra $2-300/month to buy it. However, in CA, that would be an extra $2000+ a month. Was that your jaw dropping?
You shouldn't buy your primary house as an investment or to "save" money. It should be only seen as a method to have the final say (well, almost) in what happens with your property and get respect from your city government.
Would I be right in guessing that you don't live in CA?
Wait....you have GOT to be kidding me...it is ILLEGAL to pump your own gas in Oregon?!?!
No joke.
It's like saying the sun won't rise, but there it is.
1 month in Tokyo during the rainy season will show you what messed up weather really is.
No need to spend money to visit Tokyo for that. Just stay in the good 'ol USA and visit the Midwest or the South during the summer. If you want hurricanes/tropical storms on top of that, hang out around the Gulf of Mexico. Some people like that. I'd rather live in a place that cools off.
Since they were tax breaks, the only true way to get your money "back" is to start taxing those companies to recover the money that wasn't received.
But even if this is lost on the general public, and you still demand money "back," then consider your "stimulus checks" in 2001 and this year to more than satisfy that craving.
I was sort of with you for the milk analogy (doesn't the vitamin D milk cost more? or at least the same?), but you lost me with the 11.5 oz vs. 12 oz FCOJ containers. And there isn't any harm in adding vitamin D, unlike adding lead.
But your argument really falls flat because unleaded gasoline started out higher in price and never came down compared to leaded. The gasoline companies pretty much said they were removing lead from gasoline, which is false because not adding it is not the same as removing it. If they didn't say this outright, their advertising campaigns sure made it look that way.
This whole thing is also reminding of the current hands-free cellphone that's being mandated in CA. The industry is going all out in their campaign to market headsets to people. Except that any phone that has speakerphone will satisfy the law. Just don't hold it near your ear. And dialling does not need to be hands-free. Put it on a mount, on your dash, or in your lap, on speakerphone after dialling and voila, you're in full compliance. If sound quality is an issue, then buy the headset, but not before you've tested out your speakerphone.
The fact that you bashed the SF Bay Area, showed little knowledge of the area, and then proclaimed a lifelong hatred of CA, is lost on you? Now that you were shown to be incorrect, you pretend you didn't say what you just said?
Some people may not like what I'm going to say, but the few people I've encountered that seriously acted this way had done jail time. However, I am not saying *your* background is the same, because I don't know you.
Next you'll loudly proclaim you were not talking to me, even though you just spent several minutes doing just that.
About the others I've encountered: It's truly weird to see that type of behavior coming from an adult in his 40's (or anyone, really), and it's almost unnerving, because it makes it difficult to respond to such a blatant non sequitur... but maybe that's the point? I don't claim to understand that type of mind. It's definitely childish, though. But you are setting off my alarm bells in a similar fashion.
Although, if you only do this on Internet forums to troll for your jollies, I'm not certain how much better that is.
The urban legend was the "conspiracy" part. Coca-cola was just merely incompetent. The facts are that they switched formulas, then they switched back to the "original" formula, except that cane sugar was dropped for high fructose corn syrup.
Despite what Ms. Mikkelson says about blind taste-testing, there were still many people who could tell the difference and didn't like New Coke. I could always tell the fast-food joints that had New Coke over Coke Classic. I'd order a "coke" and in an unmarked container would be the beverage. Because I was in a drive-thru, I wouldn't know ahead of time or see the name on the tap. New Coke had a definite weird aftertaste.
Pepsi is another that claims people can't taste the difference between Coca-cola and Pepsi. But, I was able to taste the difference when I was at one of their "taste-test booths", with a cold, too.
The problem with these taste-test results is that I think there are a lot of people who can't taste the difference between X and a cow's backside. Can I prove that? No. But I know that at least for me (and a few of my friends), it wouldn't be an issue.
And yes, I can taste the difference between cane sugar and HFCS, too.
The fact I can afford a house on a software engineer's salary in Seattle, but not San Francisco?
1) If we're limiting this to specific cities, then yes.
2) Otherwise, if we're talking areas, then not quite.
3) And you can always rent, which is much cheaper than a 30 year mortgage. If you want, save the difference and invest in CDs (the financial kind!) or another safe investment. In 30 years, just buy the property outright (or pretty close to outright).
They both have crappy weather, so everything else equal, Seattle wins.
1) Are we limiting this to specific cities?
2) Otherwise, absolutely no way. SF weather is uniquely SF. Go across the SF Bay to Oakland on the same day and it'll be nice and sunny. Cold in SF? Drive down to San Jose.
Plus, growing up in Oregon, I have an ingrained hatred towards anything California.
That really says it all.
Here's what I have to say about Oregon: Socialized gasoline pumps.
I drive up there, and when I go for gas (god forbid), I can't get an attendant to come out and pump for my car. But all hell breaks loose when I've waited for 20 minutes (after 2-3 waves of Oregonians are serviced ahead of me) and touch that gas pump. That's right! It's illegal to pump your own gas. For a state of people that are supposedly very constructionally conservative about the Constitution and taxes, you'd think people would be able to pump their own gas. Instead they've legislated into existence an entire labor class. So, whenever I see this hatred expressed toward CA, I just think, "hypocrites."
But yet, I don't hate entire states. I have better things to do.
Lead was added because older engines benefitted from the lead coating. It had to do with high compression ratios and unhardened blocks. I found an article that seems to support my conclusion that lead was simply added, and not some necessary component for refining oil.
Tetra-Ethyl Lead: The End of an Era for a Well-Known Molecule
But I also learned something new. I didn't know NASCAR was burning leaded gasoline as recently as last year.